Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+86
Mir
Russian_Patriot_
mavaff
The_Observer
lancelot
lyle6
ahmedfire
limb
Big_Gazza
marcellogo
Mindstorm
kvs
calripson
Hole
PhSt
AJ-47
bolshevik345
Walther von Oldenburg
The-thing-next-door
miketheterrible
dino00
JohninMK
LMFS
General
KomissarBojanchev
Peŕrier
kopyo-21
wilhelm
Interlinked
BM-21
Book.
Cheetah
0nillie0
SeigSoloyvov
franco
Isos
MonkeymodelBananaRepublic
KiloGolf
Benya
airstrike
galicije83
VladimirSahin
DerWolf
nemrod
d_taddei2
PapaDragon
hoom
higurashihougi
KoTeMoRe
sepheronx
Mike E
Kimppis
cracker
Kyo
akd
runaway
Morpheus Eberhardt
zino
Pugnax
xeno
Vann7
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
Asf
Zivo
collegeboy16
George1
volna
zg18
flamming_python
TR1
Regular
a89
Vympel
AlfaT8
Stealthflanker
Dima
TheArmenian
medo
Cyberspec
BTRfan
Viktor
IronsightSniper
Austin
GarryB
Admin
90 posters

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:07 am

    The T-72 was a numbers tank that was simple and reliable and carried a big gun with decent armour.
    It lacked super optics and night vision equipment, but it was made in enormous numbers and was clearly superior to the tanks it was replacing in service like old T-54/55 and T-62 models.

    It was designed to continue with further upgrades to remain useful, which the T-72 upgrades for their tank competitions shows... modern optics and new ERA and it is still a very good vehicle.

    The purpose of the T-90 was to replace the elite expensive tanks with the best new armour and ERA and the best new FCS and optics and equipment, so it costs more but it is also comparable to anything any other country might send against it.... it is the best the T-72 could get to.

    The Armata is a design revision for best protection of the crew and best potential for upgrades like a 152mm gun etc.
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 327
    Points : 337
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  limb Thu May 06, 2021 10:47 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    limb wrote:

    Implying separate ammo compartments with blowout panels don't work, when there is 0 evidence from both russians and westerners that they don't.

    And you're arguing from ignorance. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure that a vessel designed to divert building internal pressure via alternate pathways would not properly work if there are holes aside from those said pathways. Instead the gases would leave through those holes as well, and if they lead to the crew compartment filled with exposed crewmembers and flammable hydraulic lines its game over. What part of this is so difficult to wrap your head around that you require explicit examples?

    Anyway I find it hilarious that Abrams fans always always mention that the blowout panels are the path of least resistance for the gas when it comes to explaining if and how they work, but ignore that in the case of a battle damage a gaping hole in the ammo doors would be that path of least resistance instead. Double-think much?

    I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 741
    Points : 743
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  lyle6 Thu May 06, 2021 11:04 am

    limb wrote:

    I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science  evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm  hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against  them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

    Its only patently obvious to anyone who hasn't slept through high school physics. Will not explain further.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB Fri May 07, 2021 11:04 am

    Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds.

    There are lots of variations on what happens when a tank is hit and penetrated and it largely depends on a lot of things... where it hits and what is in the tank and where.

    The T-72 and other T series tanks got a bad reputation for exploding with their turrets blowing off when penetrated, and that was obviously because such vehicles only have half their ammo in their autoloader and the rest is inside the crew compartment in the turret and next to the driver.

    I would add that the Abrams and also most western tanks also have ammo in the crew compartments and when they were penetrated were just as vulnerable to being destroyed too.

    When there is no ammo outside the autoloader in a T-72 or T-90 then they didn't explode normally even when the turret or hull were penetrated.

    For the Soviet ammo it was worse because the propellent does not have a full length brass case, so hot sparks or flame or hot fragments landing on the rounds in the tank immediately set off the propellent, but turrets could be blown off the T-54 and T-55 and T-62, all of which used brass propellent cases.

    HE round generally only explode if hit directly... which is easier against the Abrams because the rounds are exposed in the turret bustle.

    Otherwise it takes a few minutes of the tank burning for the HE and HEAT rounds to cook off and explode... the crew would normally have already bailed before that happened.

    Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU.

    Not really... APFSDS cores are design not to shatter... because shattering means they are no longer able to penetrate any useful amount of armour, so most of the time it will exit the other side of the vehicle spraying small fragments and pieces of armour but most tanks have an inner anti spall liner made of kevlar and nomex and similar materials and will also be wearing body armour also to protect them from fragments and hot material.

    Most of the time the incinerated crews were the ones that couldn't get out as the propellent burned...

    Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

    They are a catch 22 type situation... they essentially require that the ammo is in the turret rear exposed to enemy fire, which makes it vulnerable to being hit.

    As long as it remains a propellent fire it would allow the crew to escape the vehicle before the HE and HEAT rounds start exploding, but whether they save the crew or not that tank is going to burn out so tank down.
    Russian_Patriot_
    Russian_Patriot_

    Posts : 1200
    Points : 1214
    Join date : 2021-06-08
    Location : Perm, Russia

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Russian_Patriot_ Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:17 am

    T-72B3 with an experienced canopy protecting the tank from ammunition attacking from above.
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 2hinom10
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Urytvw10
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Eghp3e10

    franco and LMFS like this post

    Russian_Patriot_
    Russian_Patriot_

    Posts : 1200
    Points : 1214
    Join date : 2021-06-08
    Location : Perm, Russia

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Russian_Patriot_ Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:39 pm

    Device for remote opening of the Sosna-U sight armor plate on the T-72B3 tank. Apparently installed artisanal. It is clearly visible that the rod is attached to the drive of the wiper of the 1A40-4 sight, and the other end holds the flap. When triggered, the flap rotates 90 degrees to the left and opens the sight lens.
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Zmaf-411
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 0iovqx11

    LMFS likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4530
    Points : 4522
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Hole Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:18 pm

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 E4uuxb10
    Another pic of the roof rack armor.

    Russian_Patriot_ likes this post

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 735
    Points : 737
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Mir Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:12 pm

    And I thought it was a neat gazebo! Laughing

    No idea that it has some form of armoured protection up there! Cool
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4415
    Points : 4447
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  franco Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:51 pm

    Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 735
    Points : 737
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Mir Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:08 pm

    Ok so then there is some camo netting that can be quickly deployed to cover the vehicle?
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:03 pm

    franco wrote:Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

    It is both.
    The spacing under those roofs is high enough to disperse a cumulative stream.
    Its goal is to detonate top attack ammo at the distnace.
    It is something that holds the camouflage net, sure.
    But for that purpose only, it would not need such a dense metal rack. Take a look at the photos.

    flamming_python and TMA1 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 741
    Points : 743
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:50 am

    Its a spacer roof designed to frustrate smaller calibre shaped charges (like those used in DPICM and the precursors of tandem warhead munitions) and top-attack EFPs. The substantial air gap of more or less a meter would effectively dissipate the precursor jet to the point that all it can do is scratch the paint while the main warhead jet would lose a substantial amount of penetration power as it is stretched beyond the optimal stand-off distance before hitting the actual armor itself. The complex roof armor with ERA/composite roof this should then be plenty enough to absorb this dispersed jet on its own. Against EFPs the sand bag and support bars should severely disrupt the shuttlecock structure of the jet so it should pancake with little effect on the armor as well. Offset tandem charge missiles like Tow-2B would be even more vulnerable since each EFP has to pass through unmolested sections of the spacer to get to the actual armor.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:14 am

    This is what it is on a closeup.

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Zrzut_10

    A metal rack holding a sandbag.
    Of course "a sandbag" is just the general idea, it can be anything else, starting with Nakidka type cover.
    But the sandbag of that thickness, I assume it is a 20 cm range, is more than enough to resolve a hole precursor warhead issue.
    Anyway, this is another brilliant idea on how to deal with top attack munnition. Costing close to nothing, easy to install in field conditions, easy to replace/repair if damaged.

    Lurk83 likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4415
    Points : 4447
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  franco Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:47 pm

    Anti-missile "visor": T-72B3 with new protection seen near Rostov. The T-72B3, equipped with a new anti-tank missile defense system, was demonstrated at the Kadamovsky training ground in the Rostov region.

    Tank crews fired at emerging or moving targets at ranges from 300 to 2000 meters. During the combat firing, the generals, according to the press service of the Southern Military District, fired from the T-72B3 cannons with a regular projectile, as well as from a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun.

    The new protective device installed in the upper part of the tower looks like a canopy, for which it received the unofficial name among tankers - "sun shade".

    However, as reported to "RG" in the military department, the design is designed to enhance protection against anti-tank missiles and ammunition of a new generation. As you know, modern anti-tank systems, including the American Javelin, are developed with the expectation that the missile hits the most vulnerable parts of armored vehicles. One of these places is the upper projection of the tank turret.

    In addition, loitering drones also tend to hit tanks and other armored vehicles precisely in the upper part of the hull that is least covered by armor.

    "In the near future, the rest of the T-72 tanks will receive similar protection elements," the ministry stressed.

    Information about the principles of action of "sun canopies" is not reported. Judging by the photographs, one can assume that the devices are designed to provoke an explosion of a rocket or ammunition in front of the main armor. This will weaken the effect of the shaped charge.

    https://rg.ru/2021/06/18/reg-ufo/protivoraketnyj-kozyrek-t-72b3-s-novoj-zashchitoj-zamechen-pod-rostovom.html

    Russian_Patriot_ likes this post

    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4973
    Points : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  flamming_python Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:13 pm

    To what extent will this canopy affect the turning or elevation radius of the AA machine gun up top?

    That goes especially for the T-90 models, which have a remote weapons station where it's not possible to see obstructions blocking you from turning or elevating the gun
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:46 pm

    franco wrote:Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

    From the top view it keeps the same design so it's hardly a cammo.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:23 am

    In very hot countries it would provide sun protection in the middle of the day and many new suicide drones will dive down and try to hit the top of the turret to damage optics and injure any exposed crew.... in that situation this will be useful, but I would not expect it to be some super shield to stop everything and anything.

    Even if it is just used to attach a camouflage screen that sits off the armour and allows the machine guns to be used and for the optics to work without covering all the optical and radar based sensors on the roof of the turret then that will be useful enough.

    Hiding the IR view would make Javelin ineffective in its fire and forget mode, which in itself makes a super expensive weapon rather less effective.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:40 am

    GarryB wrote:In very hot countries it would provide sun protection in the middle of the day and many new suicide drones will dive down and try to hit the top of the turret to damage optics and injure any exposed crew.... in that situation this will be useful, but I would not expect it to be some super shield to stop everything and anything.

    Even if it is just used to attach a camouflage screen that sits off the armour and allows the machine guns to be used and for the optics to work without covering all the optical and radar based sensors on the roof of the turret then that will be useful enough.

    Hiding the IR view would make Javelin ineffective in its fire and forget mode, which in itself makes a super expensive weapon rather less effective.

    It can be all of that, at the same time.
    When covered with Nakidka type of material, it solves the problem of IR-guided missiles like the Javelin and Spike. If used to hold a camouflage net, it can resolve the problems of long-range Spike with electro-optical homing. Makes them less effective in fire&forget mode, forcing the enemy to use other options, like on flight correction, or manual steering. That both, expose the missile operator for counteraction, and as far as Spike is a slow missile ...
    Those two missiles are the core of the antitank forces of all Russian potential enemies.
    Then, it can be combined with some additional protection against top attack ammunition. Its presence itself is a protection, as it will detonate the missile warheads too far from the main armor to work properly. If you will add a thin layer of anti-HEAT protection, a ceramic plate, a sandbag, a composite cover that can both depress IR signature and act as a NERA ... you make the precursor warhead ineffective. The effect of the main warhead load focused at the wrong distance and fighting even first-gen ERA panel? Highly questionable ...
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 735
    Points : 737
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Mir Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:48 am

    I can see that the application here is far more serious but it reminds me of the M-48 in Vietnam complete with sun shade and deck chairs Laughing
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:21 am

    Mir wrote:I can see that the application here is far more serious but it reminds me of the M-48 in Vietnam complete with sun shade and deck chairs Laughing

    For the records, the fact that Poland produces Spikes with the Israelis is a sad thing.
    It is not a widely known fact, that cooperation between South Africa and Israel was in a full swing from the 60s.
    You cooperated not only for a nuclear weapon, and tested it near the claimed Norvegian Bouvet Island.
    There was wide cooperation in other spheres.
    Spike is nothing else than your, South African, NT missiles family.
    Dialogue between Poland and SA was at a quite high level in the early 90s.
    There was a common prototype of the Hussar helo created along with Denel and other SA companies, and the prototype was tested at your ground in 1992 or 1993, can't remember correctly.
    Its weapon system used to be closely connected to your Rooivalk.
    Poland could obtain quite a potent medium-class support helo, with weapon systems surpassing those in possession of the Polish Army, and actually very advanced from the perspective, in mid of 90s.
    It took 15 years only, to end this discussion, but already with Israel, and to start production of NT line ...
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 735
    Points : 737
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Mir Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:50 am

    Absolutely! We had lots of Israeli tech coming into our country during that time and as you say there was some Polish involvement as well in the 90's.
    We just gave the stuff "South African" names and pretended that we developed it our self's Laughing
    We had a fairly well developed industry though that was able and willing to compete in the world market, but I am afraid that is almost all gone now Mad

    Examples of direct Israeli tech were Kfirs, Python AAM's, Reshef boats with Gabriel missiles, Jericho nuclear armed missiles, Galil rifle etc. etc.
    The Rooivalk was developed from the Puma/Oryx helicopter which was more or less a local development - and a pretty good one at that!
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:46 am

    flamming_python wrote:To what extent will this canopy affect the turning or elevation radius of the AA machine gun up top?

    That goes especially for the T-90 models, which have a remote weapons station where it's not possible to see obstructions blocking you from turning or elevating the gun

    There is an answer to your question in a thread already, take a look at the side photo.
    The turning and elevation are quite OK for right and rear, and you can always rotate the turret if needed.

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4530
    Points : 4522
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Hole Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:50 am

    Soon someone will put a few ERA bricks onto it.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 661
    Points : 663
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:59 am

    It won't stand it. ERA block detonation would tear that to pieces.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Isos Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:37 pm

    They already have ERA on the top of their tanks.

    But in terms of protection it should be enough to counter the small missiles carried by drones like MAM-L. That adds 1m of fresh air as protection.

    Against a rel atgm it won't protect that much.

    Sponsored content

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:32 pm